I think an understated point is the value of government that functions. While you might have gripes on individual policies, it's better for state capacity than a lack of it. Dysfunctional systems are very down wing.
Does anyone know how much of the CHIPs Act is actually being funded? I cannot seem to find data anywhere.
As an aside, fusion holds great promise, but honestly, talk is cheap. This is one area where a prize could have motivating potential. How about a $100 Billion cash prize for the first company to produce an economically viable fusion reactor? Let's race into it.
Nice set of comparisons here, although I don't agree on the IRA's expansion of subsidies for energy (as opposed to energy research). I'd argue such subsidies are primarily in practice rent-seeking opportunities and that's about as down wing as one can get!
My question - never answered - on renewable energy subsidies in particular is for the industry to give us a date certain at which the subsidies will end. I asked this in congressional testimony once and got zero response but it seems to me to be fundamental to whether these technologies will ever get off the dole. (They can - but only if there is some tough love applied and the spigot is turned off at some point).
Fix permitting - yes! Fund research through a sensible allocation of research dollars via competitive grants, prizes, etc. - yes! Put technologies on the dole? No!
I think the correct answer to this question is that they end when the implicit subsidies of the fossil fuel industry ends. We are best served by ending subsidies for clean energy and internalizing the negative externalities of burning fossil fuels. Put the technologies on a level ground.
I disagree - "other people get subsidies, so I should get one" doesn't seem like an upwing argument to me, and I don't think it is a particularly intellectually persuasive one. It is, unfortunately, a politically effective one.
I once interviewed an official of the Texas Sheep and Goat Raisers Association, just after the mohair price support program was cancelled (a rare win for common sense in ag policy). He confidently told me that the mohair industry would get a new subsidy. When I asked why (since the NYT had been editorializing about the "$800 mohair toilet seat" in a reference to the insane price of plumbing on Air Force jets and the program had been one of the very few ag programs ever to go away), he said "because other people get subsidies, it's not fair that we don't get one too." He was right! They got a new subsidy deal a few years later. (And, the original mohair price support program was justified on national security grounds! Army dress uniform winter coats were mohair in the 1950s and we needed a secure domestic supply to ensure our troops looked good when they had a victory parade in Red Square after WW3, if we won in the winter.)
The right answer is for renewable groups to campaign to get rid of subsidies for other energy sources, not to demand their own subsidies. "The other industry got a subsidy so I deserve one" is the path to bankruptcy that we are now on. And that's not very upwing.
There is an implicit subsidy that the fossil fuel industry receives, not explicit. The producers/polluters never have to bear the cost of their pollution; they make everyone else pay it. As long as that continues, the fossil fuel industry will always undercut everyone else.
Calling for a carbon tax (which is not a subsidy, it's the opposite) is about leveling the playing field. This is basic economics. Otherwise, the govt is going to have to keep subsidizing clean energy, which we both agree isn't ideal.
A carbon tax isn't what renewable energy producers are being subsidized with. That's a whole separate issue. Renewables benefit from stuff like the IRA provisions that throw money at projects that wouldn't be built otherwise, EV mandates, and so on. Those are what I'm objecting to.
I know what you mean, I am all for removing the subsidies for green energy. What I am saying is that green energy will not be competitive with fossil fuels unless the implicit subsidy (the lack of a carbon/pollution tax) is addressed.
Removing the subsidies for green energy puts fossil fuels at an inherent advantage.
You make a fair point that fossil fuels have advantages - but there are some important implicit subsidies for green energy too. Our ranch has a power line across it to bring wind power from the TX panhandle to Austin, the easement for which was taken by eminent domain. A few miles away is a parallel line built by a utility without eminent domain powers - they paid 3-5x and had a far less burdensome easement. That's a subsidy we're providing (against our will). Then there are the bird deaths caused by the wind turbines. The lines attracting a breed of Mexican raptors that love roosting on power lines (a strange externality but a real one) that kill our baby goats and sheep. There are externalities everywhere from everything. Coming up with a perfectly "level playing field" is impossible. If we wait to remove subsidies until all the implicit subsidies are dealt with, we will never get rid of them.
I think an understated point is the value of government that functions. While you might have gripes on individual policies, it's better for state capacity than a lack of it. Dysfunctional systems are very down wing.
Does anyone know how much of the CHIPs Act is actually being funded? I cannot seem to find data anywhere.
As an aside, fusion holds great promise, but honestly, talk is cheap. This is one area where a prize could have motivating potential. How about a $100 Billion cash prize for the first company to produce an economically viable fusion reactor? Let's race into it.
Nice set of comparisons here, although I don't agree on the IRA's expansion of subsidies for energy (as opposed to energy research). I'd argue such subsidies are primarily in practice rent-seeking opportunities and that's about as down wing as one can get!
My question - never answered - on renewable energy subsidies in particular is for the industry to give us a date certain at which the subsidies will end. I asked this in congressional testimony once and got zero response but it seems to me to be fundamental to whether these technologies will ever get off the dole. (They can - but only if there is some tough love applied and the spigot is turned off at some point).
Fix permitting - yes! Fund research through a sensible allocation of research dollars via competitive grants, prizes, etc. - yes! Put technologies on the dole? No!
I think the correct answer to this question is that they end when the implicit subsidies of the fossil fuel industry ends. We are best served by ending subsidies for clean energy and internalizing the negative externalities of burning fossil fuels. Put the technologies on a level ground.
I disagree - "other people get subsidies, so I should get one" doesn't seem like an upwing argument to me, and I don't think it is a particularly intellectually persuasive one. It is, unfortunately, a politically effective one.
I once interviewed an official of the Texas Sheep and Goat Raisers Association, just after the mohair price support program was cancelled (a rare win for common sense in ag policy). He confidently told me that the mohair industry would get a new subsidy. When I asked why (since the NYT had been editorializing about the "$800 mohair toilet seat" in a reference to the insane price of plumbing on Air Force jets and the program had been one of the very few ag programs ever to go away), he said "because other people get subsidies, it's not fair that we don't get one too." He was right! They got a new subsidy deal a few years later. (And, the original mohair price support program was justified on national security grounds! Army dress uniform winter coats were mohair in the 1950s and we needed a secure domestic supply to ensure our troops looked good when they had a victory parade in Red Square after WW3, if we won in the winter.)
The right answer is for renewable groups to campaign to get rid of subsidies for other energy sources, not to demand their own subsidies. "The other industry got a subsidy so I deserve one" is the path to bankruptcy that we are now on. And that's not very upwing.
There is an implicit subsidy that the fossil fuel industry receives, not explicit. The producers/polluters never have to bear the cost of their pollution; they make everyone else pay it. As long as that continues, the fossil fuel industry will always undercut everyone else.
Calling for a carbon tax (which is not a subsidy, it's the opposite) is about leveling the playing field. This is basic economics. Otherwise, the govt is going to have to keep subsidizing clean energy, which we both agree isn't ideal.
A carbon tax isn't what renewable energy producers are being subsidized with. That's a whole separate issue. Renewables benefit from stuff like the IRA provisions that throw money at projects that wouldn't be built otherwise, EV mandates, and so on. Those are what I'm objecting to.
I know what you mean, I am all for removing the subsidies for green energy. What I am saying is that green energy will not be competitive with fossil fuels unless the implicit subsidy (the lack of a carbon/pollution tax) is addressed.
Removing the subsidies for green energy puts fossil fuels at an inherent advantage.
You make a fair point that fossil fuels have advantages - but there are some important implicit subsidies for green energy too. Our ranch has a power line across it to bring wind power from the TX panhandle to Austin, the easement for which was taken by eminent domain. A few miles away is a parallel line built by a utility without eminent domain powers - they paid 3-5x and had a far less burdensome easement. That's a subsidy we're providing (against our will). Then there are the bird deaths caused by the wind turbines. The lines attracting a breed of Mexican raptors that love roosting on power lines (a strange externality but a real one) that kill our baby goats and sheep. There are externalities everywhere from everything. Coming up with a perfectly "level playing field" is impossible. If we wait to remove subsidies until all the implicit subsidies are dealt with, we will never get rid of them.